5 ms·

The laws need to be updated. CCTV in public used to be fine because no one was actually watching it unless there was an incident. Now it’s possible to have AI w

The laws need to be updated. CCTV in public used to be fine because no one was actually watching it unless there was an incident. Now it’s possible to have AI watch every camera and correlate everything everywhere we need new privacy laws to reflect this capability.

thfuran 8mo ago
And the government needs to be restricted from buying data it wouldn’t be permitted to collect itself.
- throwawayqqq11 8mo ago
  Yep, ban collection and pruchase of such data for everyone. Exceptions usually mean private companies hop in to offer the "service". I think the current insane development are surveilance capitalists, trying to rush their panopticon to solidify their power. Guess that means no reasoable privacy law for the US, even under hypothetical president newsom.
- bilbo0s 8mo ago
  Meh. If the government is only restricted from buying the data, then they'll just have someone else buy it. Palantir is not the government. So they can buy the real time feed, analyze it in real time, and give the real time results of that analysis to the government without issue. Restricting the government from buying that data does nothing. If you want to stop the government taking advantage of the data, then you would have to outlaw the collection of the data altogether. So that the initial collection of the data by anyone, is illegal. Personally, I don't think that's gonna happen. There's way too many people making way too much money telling the government who hangs out with who, who cheats with who, and so on and so forth.
  - thfuran 8mo ago
    >give the real time results of that analysis to the government without issue. Presumably they’re not doing this for free.
    - direwolf20 8mo ago
      It's a free charity service, and the hundred million dollars per year the taxpayers pay the same person for some other excuse has nothing to do with it, honest
- atoav 8mo ago
  No. Everyone should be restricted from buying (or better: collecting) it, otherwise you just created the business model for evil corp that does the job and collects your tax dollar to do the same thing.
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    How can an evil corp that isn't the government tax you?
    - atoav 8mo ago
      Easy. If you ban the government to buy that data, but evil corp is allowed to buy it, you now created a business model where evil corp is paid by your government for some compiled version of said data as a service with hefty additional fees on top. And if you think that is unrealistic you may need to do some research into who pays the bills of Palantir et al. So if the goal of the ban is to prevent government overreach, you need to ban collection for everybody, except maybe well documenter scientific applications and specific private areas.
achierius 8mo ago
It was not fine then -- what we have now is simply even worse. We do not need to make concessions to our oligarchs: none of this is OK.
fc417fc802 8mo ago
I don't mind a local AI on an airgapped security camera network monitoring a camera and issuing an alert to a security guard. The issues are internet connectivity, data retention/mining/sale, and non-local processing (ie handing stuff off to a third party that does who knows what and probably doesn't take security seriously).
- ben_w 8mo ago
  Even with that, I do mind. Just as two trivial examples, even though neither affects me personally: The estimated number of heroin users in the UK exceeds the total prison population. The number of class-A drug users in the UK is estimated to be so high that if they actually followed the minimum sentencing guidelines for possession, it would cause a catastrophic economic disaster both from all the people no longer working and also all of the people who suddenly had to build new prisons to hold them. I'm not interested in drugs (and I don't live in the UK, but I assume the UK isn't abnormal in this regard). Another example is road traffic law. Even just speeding offences, I think you probably catch everyone who actually drives in the UK, often enough that after a month the only people left allowed to drive would be people like me who don't even own a car. The entire legal system has to be radically changed with far less punishments for almost everything if you have perfect, or even 30% of the way to perfect, surveillance.
  - fc417fc802 8mo ago
    I was a bit unclear. I agree, I don't want the government using AI to identify all violations of the law. That sounds like a very straightforward dystopia. What I don't mind is private companies using AI analysis to support their security guards. I object to any sharing of the data with third parties though. It should be illegal for the data to leave their internal network and it should be illegal to retain it for more than a few days. I don't care if grocery store loss prevention has eyes on every aisle. My concern is data warehousing and subsequent misuse.
  - egorfine 8mo ago
    > Another example is road traffic law. Even just speeding offences, I think you probably catch everyone who actually drives in the UK, often enough that after a month the only people left allowed to drive would be people like me who don't even own a car. You don't have to strip the driving licenses. You should impose a fine and not an extremely painful one for starters. And then probably within less than a year the whole population will drive properly. I think I'm in favor of indiscriminately fining everyone speeding at every camera, but I realize there is no privacy-preserving way to do it today thus I will be against it. (I'm a driver and car lover who is never speeding)
tremon 8mo ago
Oh how the public opinion has been moved already. Rewriting your argument to echo the sentiment from a generation ago: > The laws need to be updated. Having police officers monitor public streets was fine because they wouldn't actually recall anything unless there was an incident. Now it's possible to go back and review specific footage and identify everyone on those camera's -- we need new privacy laws to reflect this capability.
garyfirestorm 8mo ago
When passive monitoring turns into analytics -> public watching turns into stalking. it’s ok for me to observe a person in public park - it should be ok to watch camera for an activity But if it’s not ok for me to stalk someone I think it should be illegal for a network of cameras to watch my movements too! Slapping AI onto stalking is still stalking.

thfuran 8mo ago

And the government needs to be restricted from buying data it wouldn’t be permitted to collect itself.

throwawayqqq11 8mo ago
Yep, ban collection and pruchase of such data for everyone. Exceptions usually mean private companies hop in to offer the "service". I think the current insane development are surveilance capitalists, trying to rush their panopticon to solidify their power. Guess that means no reasoable privacy law for the US, even under hypothetical president newsom.
bilbo0s 8mo ago
Meh. If the government is only restricted from buying the data, then they'll just have someone else buy it. Palantir is not the government. So they can buy the real time feed, analyze it in real time, and give the real time results of that analysis to the government without issue. Restricting the government from buying that data does nothing. If you want to stop the government taking advantage of the data, then you would have to outlaw the collection of the data altogether. So that the initial collection of the data by anyone, is illegal. Personally, I don't think that's gonna happen. There's way too many people making way too much money telling the government who hangs out with who, who cheats with who, and so on and so forth.
- thfuran 8mo ago
  >give the real time results of that analysis to the government without issue. Presumably they’re not doing this for free.
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    It's a free charity service, and the hundred million dollars per year the taxpayers pay the same person for some other excuse has nothing to do with it, honest
atoav 8mo ago
No. Everyone should be restricted from buying (or better: collecting) it, otherwise you just created the business model for evil corp that does the job and collects your tax dollar to do the same thing.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  How can an evil corp that isn't the government tax you?
  - atoav 8mo ago
    Easy. If you ban the government to buy that data, but evil corp is allowed to buy it, you now created a business model where evil corp is paid by your government for some compiled version of said data as a service with hefty additional fees on top. And if you think that is unrealistic you may need to do some research into who pays the bills of Palantir et al. So if the goal of the ban is to prevent government overreach, you need to ban collection for everybody, except maybe well documenter scientific applications and specific private areas.

achierius 8mo ago

It was not fine then -- what we have now is simply even worse. We do not need to make concessions to our oligarchs: none of this is OK.

fc417fc802 8mo ago

I don't mind a local AI on an airgapped security camera network monitoring a camera and issuing an alert to a security guard. The issues are internet connectivity, data retention/mining/sale, and non-local processing (ie handing stuff off to a third party that does who knows what and probably doesn't take security seriously).

ben_w 8mo ago
Even with that, I do mind. Just as two trivial examples, even though neither affects me personally: The estimated number of heroin users in the UK exceeds the total prison population. The number of class-A drug users in the UK is estimated to be so high that if they actually followed the minimum sentencing guidelines for possession, it would cause a catastrophic economic disaster both from all the people no longer working and also all of the people who suddenly had to build new prisons to hold them. I'm not interested in drugs (and I don't live in the UK, but I assume the UK isn't abnormal in this regard). Another example is road traffic law. Even just speeding offences, I think you probably catch everyone who actually drives in the UK, often enough that after a month the only people left allowed to drive would be people like me who don't even own a car. The entire legal system has to be radically changed with far less punishments for almost everything if you have perfect, or even 30% of the way to perfect, surveillance.
- fc417fc802 8mo ago
  I was a bit unclear. I agree, I don't want the government using AI to identify all violations of the law. That sounds like a very straightforward dystopia. What I don't mind is private companies using AI analysis to support their security guards. I object to any sharing of the data with third parties though. It should be illegal for the data to leave their internal network and it should be illegal to retain it for more than a few days. I don't care if grocery store loss prevention has eyes on every aisle. My concern is data warehousing and subsequent misuse.
- egorfine 8mo ago
  > Another example is road traffic law. Even just speeding offences, I think you probably catch everyone who actually drives in the UK, often enough that after a month the only people left allowed to drive would be people like me who don't even own a car. You don't have to strip the driving licenses. You should impose a fine and not an extremely painful one for starters. And then probably within less than a year the whole population will drive properly. I think I'm in favor of indiscriminately fining everyone speeding at every camera, but I realize there is no privacy-preserving way to do it today thus I will be against it. (I'm a driver and car lover who is never speeding)

tremon 8mo ago

Oh how the public opinion has been moved already. Rewriting your argument to echo the sentiment from a generation ago: > The laws need to be updated. Having police officers monitor public streets was fine because they wouldn't actually recall anything unless there was an incident. Now it's possible to go back and review specific footage and identify everyone on those camera's -- we need new privacy laws to reflect this capability.

garyfirestorm 8mo ago

When passive monitoring turns into analytics -> public watching turns into stalking. it’s ok for me to observe a person in public park - it should be ok to watch camera for an activity But if it’s not ok for me to stalk someone I think it should be illegal for a network of cameras to watch my movements too! Slapping AI onto stalking is still stalking.